Comey memos leak online

Agreed, but is the objective to place blame or to fix the problem? If it is to place blame, then you are absolutely correct that we need to blame
every Congressman and President and Cabinet member and FBI leader all the way beck to Nixon. But what good will that do?

I want the problem that led to this circus fixed. I want the FBI cleaned up ad used to prosecute everyone - everyone - who had a hand in
promoting the corruption that is being flaunted in our collective faces. That is my goal. I can blame people later when the problem is fixed. There'll
be plenty of time.

The problem is that one party has grudgingly went along with part of the plan that I believe the country needs, proposed by Trump, while the other
party has taken every opportunity to obstruct it. Those who obstructed it need to be ferreted out, exposed, and prosecuted for whatever crimes they
may have committed to whatever degree the law allows. That will restore power to the less corrupt, and send a strong message that future corruption
has dire consequences.

Comey is one of those. Lynch is another. Hillary is another. McCabe was another, and he is already in trouble. I believe Rosenstein falls into that
category; an investigation should tell. McCain is another, but he is so old and sick, he's probably not worth the time. Flake might well be worth the
time. Schumer, Pelosi, Warner, Williams, and even McConnell need to be shown the error of their ways. And there are many others... including Strzok
and Page.

Then we can talk about how Bush and the Congress of the time managed to pass a Patriot act that stripped citizens of their rights. We can talk about
Obama's collusions with Russia. We can talk about all these past administrations... but there's plenty of time for that after we have a fully
functioning, non-partisan investigative arm of the government again. Without that, the rest is wishful thinking.

Agreed, but is the objective to place blame or to fix the problem? If it is to place blame, then you are absolutely correct that we need to blame
every Congressman and President and Cabinet member and FBI leader all the way beck to Nixon. But what good will that do?

I want the problem that led to this circus fixed. I want the FBI cleaned up ad used to prosecute everyone - everyone - who had a hand in
promoting the corruption that is being flaunted in our collective faces. That is my goal. I can blame people later when the problem is fixed. There'll
be plenty of time.

The problem is that one party has grudgingly went along with part of the plan that I believe the country needs, proposed by Trump, while the other
party has taken every opportunity to obstruct it. Those who obstructed it need to be ferreted out, exposed, and prosecuted for whatever crimes they
may have committed to whatever degree the law allows. That will restore power to the less corrupt, and send a strong message that future corruption
has dire consequences.

Comey is one of those. Lynch is another. Hillary is another. McCabe was another, and he is already in trouble. I believe Rosenstein falls into that
category; an investigation should tell. McCain is another, but he is so old and sick, he's probably not worth the time. Flake might well be worth the
time. Schumer, Pelosi, Warner, Williams, and even McConnell need to be shown the error of their ways. And there are many others... including Strzok
and Page.

Then we can talk about how Bush and the Congress of the time managed to pass a Patriot act that stripped citizens of their rights. We can talk about
Obama's collusions with Russia. We can talk about all these past administrations... but there's plenty of time for that after we have a fully
functioning, non-partisan investigative arm of the government again. Without that, the rest is wishful thinking.

TheRedneck

I hope you reread your comments and realize you have placed blame in the individuals.

It's literally the policies that Congress passes that allow 99.9 percent of fisa warrants to pass without the interjection of the person being
targeted.

It's laws for special council that allow it to get carried away.

It's bulk data collection etc.

It's the voting to expand fisa etc

These people on trial are simply the flavor of the day.

Nothing will change without the laws that allow abuse to be changed.

For instance Nunes wrote a useless meMO about fisa but voted to expand the program to include more Americans.

That is what happens when you focus on the people not the process.

In other words the dirty birds are a smokescreen for bad policy passed by the majority.

Yes you need to get the manaforts, the hope hicks, the gates, the pruits, the lynches, the comey's, etc..but that alone is the illusion of justice.

The people are the ones who make the process. No law and no process has ever voted itself onto law.

That nay be our disconnect here, and it's the same philosophy I use when discussing gun control. People do the bad deeds. Whatever the issue du
jour is, whatever the problem is, it can be traced back to people. Everything else is just a tool being used.

We could remove every law ever passed but leave the people responsible in power, and those people would simply pass them again. We'd be right back
where we started from, probably in worse shape because the people responsible would simply make the laws harder to remove. But if we remove the
corruption by removing the people who want to abuse their power, we do not have that problem.

Will we get more corrupt people? Yes! But if we punish those responsible, that threat of punishment will cause the next group to be less corrupt, or
at least less overt about it. As long as we apply the law and apply it equally to all, the system is stable. Only when we do not apply the law equally
does it become unstable.

The laws are not being applied equally. Hillary Clinton bungled the Libya situation and lied to the families of the fallen: fact. Hillary Clinton
stored classified emails on a private server in violation of the law: fact. Hillary Clinton destroyed evidence that was subpoenaed by Congress: fact.
She got no fine, no prison time, not even a censure. Donald Trump has not been proven to perform any illegal action, yet he is regularly condemned and
threatened with impeachment. That is not equal application of justice, and it serves to embolden those who have a propensity for corruption.

Yes, I focus on the people involved. They are the source of the problem.

The people are the ones who make the process. No law and no process has ever voted itself onto law.

That nay be our disconnect here, and it's the same philosophy I use when discussing gun control. People do the bad deeds. Whatever the issue du
jour is, whatever the problem is, it can be traced back to people. Everything else is just a tool being used.

We could remove every law ever passed but leave the people responsible in power, and those people would simply pass them again. We'd be right back
where we started from, probably in worse shape because the people responsible would simply make the laws harder to remove. But if we remove the
corruption by removing the people who want to abuse their power, we do not have that problem.

Will we get more corrupt people? Yes! But if we punish those responsible, that threat of punishment will cause the next group to be less corrupt, or
at least less overt about it. As long as we apply the law and apply it equally to all, the system is stable. Only when we do not apply the law equally
does it become unstable.

The laws are not being applied equally. Hillary Clinton bungled the Libya situation and lied to the families of the fallen: fact. Hillary Clinton
stored classified emails on a private server in violation of the law: fact. Hillary Clinton destroyed evidence that was subpoenaed by Congress: fact.
She got no fine, no prison time, not even a censure. Donald Trump has not been proven to perform any illegal action, yet he is regularly condemned and
threatened with impeachment. That is not equal application of justice, and it serves to embolden those who have a propensity for corruption.

Yes, I focus on the people involved. They are the source of the problem.

TheRedneck

You are a smart guy but now you are mixing unrelated things.

Fisa isn't a right. Due process is..

Spying is the opposite of a right.

You are seemingly simply defending turf and bad policy.

Fisa is unconstitutional

Spying is unconstitutional

Privacy is constitutional

The 2nd amendment is a right

These other things are not. They are bad laws that allow people to get away with bad things.

Most of these lawyers will walk. Particularly the us attorneys who know the laws.

Q also said martial law in december. Hillary on house arrest in november. Q is a game, faction (fact mixed with fiction), made to confuse people and
keep them interested.

BUT Q just posted a picture of James Alefantis! And that B-list actress was arrested, so that means Q is real! Because only Q could have a picture of
James Alefantis in a social media-type photo.

Also! Q posted a picture of a canary palm tree! Ok? Q is cryptically telling us that the B-list actress is going to sing like a canary! See? Q is
real! Because we need him to post a canary palm tree and make us research what kind of tree that is, so we can then go and figure out that Q is
saying that B-list actress is going to sing like a canary, instead of just posting a picture of an actual canary. And you know, Q telling us that
B-list actress is singing like a canary? Well, that's some groundbreaking insider info right there. Good thing Q hinted at that!

I think you misunderstand me. I do not state FISA is a right; I actually think it is far too ripe for abuse and should not have been implemented. The
government should not be spying on American citizens except where there is clear evidence that treason is being committed... then it becomes a matter
of national security that endangers the rights of everyone else.

What I am saying is that FISA was abused, and those who abused it must be brought to justice.

If there were no FISA, which you seem to support if I am reading you right, and corrupt individuals were dead-set on spying on American citizens, they
would be spied upon. If, as I am stating, FISA existed and no individuals involved were to use it to spy on American citizens, there would be no
improper spying. The result from my proposal is superior in that respect.

I agree that FISA should not exist in the incarnation we see it now. The fact that these allegations exist is enough to warrant it being dismantled
IMO. However, the issue right now, at this particular moment in time, is to ensure that individuals who operate outside the law are caught and kept
from continuing their abuse. Then we can talk about changing FISA and I will likely agree with you at that point.

My problem with your approach is it will never happen. Fisa will never be discussed. People have been busted abusing fisa since John ashcroft.
Where literally in the first year of his seat at the AG the fisa court itself found 75 violations.

What happened after that...the continued expansion of the program.

What happened after Nunes released his memo...he himself voted for its further expansion.

So no sir one does not need to happen first, in fact dismantling the policy would have a greater effect than busting the people. I agree they both
need to happen bit there is and never will be a discussion about the policy. There is no history of this. There is no talk of this. In fact there
is the opposite.

I would also venture to say the fisa law will allow these people to go un punished.

FISA is not preventing prosecution of abuses of FISA. That is definitive, i.e. by definition. FISA is a written policy which has been violated
according to several codified statutes. What you are saying is, in effect, murder is terrible so we should not have a defense to murder of
self-defense. You are basing that type of assertion in the fact that people have gotten away with murder by pleading self-defense and bribing judges.
Removing the self-defense exception would not be a reasonable answer; prosecuting those who bribed the judges would be.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it.

Spies and international surveillance is a matter of necessity. There are countries who would love to overthrow our government, and they will use those
tactics. It is foolhardy to not retaliate in kind. But that brings up the issue of what to do if someone who is a citizen is captured on tape...
citizens have a right to not be monitored without due process. We can't simply call them up and ask them, "Do you agree to us surveilling you while
you conspire to commit crimes with country X?" So there has to be some sort of mechanism in place to allow the government to protect itself without
intruding on the rights of the innocent.

FISA simply needs more oversight. But now we have the issue of those who should have been overseeing FISA instead allowing and even perpetrating
abuses. That is illegal. If we are to have any law whatsoever, it must apply to all equally. To even hint at otherwise is to abandon all legal
protections the citizenry has.

FISA is not preventing prosecution of abuses of FISA. That is definitive, i.e. by definition. FISA is a written policy which has been violated
according to several codified statutes. What you are saying is, in effect, murder is terrible so we should not have a defense to murder of
self-defense. You are basing that type of assertion in the fact that people have gotten away with murder by pleading self-defense and bribing judges.
Removing the self-defense exception would not be a reasonable answer; prosecuting those who bribed the judges would be.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it.

Spies and international surveillance is a matter of necessity. There are countries who would love to overthrow our government, and they will use those
tactics. It is foolhardy to not retaliate in kind. But that brings up the issue of what to do if someone who is a citizen is captured on tape...
citizens have a right to not be monitored without due process. We can't simply call them up and ask them, "Do you agree to us surveilling you while
you conspire to commit crimes with country X?" So there has to be some sort of mechanism in place to allow the government to protect itself without
intruding on the rights of the innocent.

FISA simply needs more oversight. But now we have the issue of those who should have been overseeing FISA instead allowing and even perpetrating
abuses. That is illegal. If we are to have any law whatsoever, it must apply to all equally. To even hint at otherwise is to abandon all legal
protections the citizenry has.

TheRedneck

I am not saying anything like you are implying. It's obvious it's going to take you some research time to figure it out.

It's funny how some people can justify things like unconstitutional policy when they want to get their enemies. Can you explain the due process of
fisa warrants? Why are 99.9 accepted? Sounds like a rubber stamp made so purposely. Kept so purposely.

Can you explain why FISA keeps getting expanded to include more Americans at the same time the abuses are brought to light?

Do you remember how bad John ashcroft was? It only increased from there.

If you have a law that police can knock out a perp with a baseball bat whenever they "feel verbally insulted" and 100,000,000 innocent people are
knocked out the following year in your opinion that wasn't the law or procedure but rather the abusers?

At some point it doesn't matter at all. The data is the data. If the police are protected because of how the law is written and they can use "I was
insulted" as a defence and get off it doesn't matter now does it.

But I give up. I would however, be willing to bet my table top cnc nothing will change in regard to fisa, because that is what the data shows. We
have been making memos that go nowhere for 17 years. It's only gotten worse.

The 4th has only gotten thinner...

But I do understand your idealism. It just isn't reality. There is no data to show it is the case. The exact opposite in fact.

Can you explain the due process of fisa warrants? Why are 99.9 accepted? Sounds like a rubber stamp made so purposely. Kept so
purposely.

The FBI submits an application containing applicable information on why they wish to surveil a citizen. The FISC then approves or (rarely) disapproves
the application, and an extension is required every, I believe, 6 months. That extension must show new evidence.

But it doesn't work exactly like that. The FBI alone gets to submit information, which opens the door to abuse. That's why anyone who abuses the FISA
system MUST be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Can you explain why FISA keeps getting expanded to include more Americans at the same time the abuses are brought to light?

I can guess. Congress must have some benefit that relies on FISA abuse, and that needs to be brought out and addressed.

If you have a law that police can knock out a perp with a baseball bat whenever they "feel verbally insulted" and 100,000,000 innocent people
are knocked out the following year in your opinion that wasn't the law or procedure but rather the abusers?

OK, OK, that is indeed a fair point, but I would actually target both the unjust law and those who abused it (at least the worst abusers). A cop who
would take advantage of such a law is not worthy to wear the badge IMO.

So what is your solution? What replacement for FISA, or what adjustments to FISA, would you like to see?

But I give up. I would however, be willing to bet my table top cnc nothing will change in regard to fisa, because that is what the data shows.
We have been making memos that go nowhere for 17 years. It's only gotten worse.

Right now, I wish we weren't so close to the same position; I would take that bet in a New York heartbeat, because I have always wanted a tabletop
CNC!

But in truth, we're arguing the same thing from different aims. The only difference I see in our positions is that I want to concentrate on the
abusers first, then close the loophole that allows the abuse. You want to close that loophole, but aren't particularly worried about the abusers... at
least that is my reading of your posts.

I want to go after the abusers. I did in 2002 when they found 75 of them in the first year they expanded the powers of surveillance.

The most important thing is to stop the loopholes or else you just keep adding new abusers to the docket every year. If we were hoestly going after
the abusers there would be a string of them over the 17 years. Possibly hundreds of fbi and justice officials from both parties. If we don't close
the loopholes more abusers will come in. If we don't close the loopholes they may have a loophole to defend themselves over the vague and powerful
prosecution powers given to them.

However I agree they need to go down. My point is proving they are abusing the system may be harder than you think.

Why can't we do all of it? My guess just like immigration these debates are better left unresolved for wedge voting issues.

We should hold congress accountable for creating these laws and ignoring the ease of abuse, hold tell abusers accountable, and examine and debate how
to prevent abuse. All at the same time.

However, I don't see that at all. I see a blame game and scapegoating. I see another well we solved it we found these three bad guys problem solved,
it's all their fault, it could never happen again, nothing to see here.

I agree... we need both. If these people go down, and the facts of how they managed to pull off their abuses become known, we will have evidence that
cries out for legislative change. If, on the other hand, the changes are made, they will have no impact on the prosecution of those who violated the
law.

Our entire disagreement is predicated on one thing: which needs to come first? We both want the same end result.

Get Congress to consider a bill tomorrow that closes these loopholes and I promise you I'll be for it 100%. Without the public trials coming up,
however, it will take an act of Congress... literally. I just think it is better to grab the low-hanging fruit so we can maybe use those lower
branches to get the rest.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.